Chair Robert Bley-Vroman called the meeting called to order at 3:06 p.m.
1. The Minutes of the August 31, 2005 meeting were approved with two
corrections.

2. Chairs Report:

The Chair outlined the Senate's rules governing quorum. 50% of the
membership must be present in order for the Senate to undertake
business.

Senators are reminded to inform the Senate office if they cannot be
present. Senators may wish to have someone attend the Senate meeting
in their place. However, the Senate does not permit proxy voting. A
senator who must miss several meetings should resign or take leave
from the Senate.

At the September Board of Regents meeting, Robert Bley-Vroman presented the
Senate's resolution, Regarding Proposed Changes to Board of Regents
Policy 5-19, adopted at the Senate meeting of August 31, 2005. The
Board voted to suspend the implementation of amendments to RCUH
hiring policy of 2002 and of 2004. The practical result of this Board
action is generally consistent with the intent of the Senate
resolution.

On April 20, 2005 the Senate passed a resolution requiring a yearly
report in September as to how RTRF funds were used in the previous
year. The Vice Chancellor has completed this report for 2004-2005.
This report will be forwarded to the Committee on Research for
review. The Committee may decide to ask the Vice Chancellor to
present the report to the Senate at a future meeting.

The Chair reported that the SEC had forwarded several matters to
standing committees, including several certificate proposals to CAPP
as well as a proposal from the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
for a change to the process to reviewing and approving certificates.
CAB is looking into the general area of interim appointments and
executive appointment process more generally. CAB is also considering
matters related to faculty housing and to the UH investment
practices. The Committee on Athletics and the Committee on Student
Affairs are both considering the proposals regarding the consumption
of alcohol at football games, and the relationship of Manoa to
the System in this area. The SEC referred to the General Education
Committee matters concerning articulation with the community college
system and mentoring. A new sexual harassment complaint procedure has
been forwarded to the Committee on Professional Matters. Several
other issues have been brought to the Senate's attention and referred
to the appropriate committees. Details are available in the SEC's
minutes.

Senate meetings are open, and non-senators may participate in debate
at the discretion of the chair, as time permits. Bley-Vroman pointed
out that in today's discussions regarding the UARC, it is very
important, given the limited time, to make sure that any senator who
wishes to speak can speak. Non-senators may speak if there is time,
but only after all senators who wish to speak have done so. Senators
are also urged not to speak at great length and not to speak several
times on the same topic.

The Chair suggested that the following two resolutions be deferred
until the next meeting:

a. UARC process: Last month the UARC ad-hoc committee presented an
interim report and had intended to have a final report and perhaps a
resolution for this meeting. But the final report cannot be prepared
until the proposed contract is received and reviewed. Thus, today's
agenda will present a summary and discussion of the Interim report.
Gary Ostrander has been invited to present on Business Management
Plan, followed by discussion.

b. The Chancellor Search: The SEC has prepared a written explanation
of the concept "Manoa-driven/faculty-led" (see document attached to
today's meeting packet).

Discussion: Efird (JABSOM) asked about the authority to select/hire a
Chancellor. Bley-Vroman stated it lies solely with the BOR but that
the BOR would not want to approve a hire that MFS opposed. Madey (NS)
asked if there is anything in the by-laws that would touch on this
matter? Bley-Vroman: No. Bley-Vroman noted that currently we are not
far into the process; and more discussion with the Chancellor is
needed. Ericson (ED) asked to what extent is this a departure from
the past process? Bley-Vroman stated the last search for a Chancellor
was very much senate-driven and the proposed process does not suggest
a radical change.

4. Senate UARC Committee Report and Discussion

a.UARC Interim Report Summary (presented by S. Rutter, UARC Committee
Chair): Rutter stated the UARC committee must review the draft
contract when it is received, and also receive independent counsel's
assessment before the final report can be prepared. She briefly
recounted the UARC committee history: it was organized in June and met
extensively over the summer. There were also email conversation.
Other members: D. Conway-Jones, J. Osorio, C. Pang, T. Ramsey,
D. Ross, R. Wilkins, J. Tiles (SEC liaison). The interim report
discusses financial cost and benefits, management and government,
philosophy and mission. The UARC committee noted administration's
lack of consultation prior to announcing UH as a UARC partner.
Start-up costs would come both from UH system and Manoa. An estimate
of income notes a $10 million cap annually for 5 years. A key
difference in UARC task orders vs. other contract mechanisms is the
indirect cost rates, with UARC allowing a more generous charge. This
could work as a safety net, allowing valuable staff to stay employed
between projects or task orders. The UARC committee struggled with
several questions. First, would equipment purchased for UARC be
available for other non-UARC uses? The business plan does not answer
this question and the question has been referred to counsel. Does UH
have the staff and systems to manage the complex fiscal system? This
UARC is different in that others have separate facilities, so problems
of mixed use do not come up. There is no blueprint for the "virtual"
model. Also, it was noted that the task order review proposal has
changed from an earlier concept; the management plan now suggests a
7-member faculty review committee under MFS. Although administrators
have stated the UARC vehicle is simply to bring in new funds, the
committee notes discussions inevitably bring up a deep emotional
divide among faculty.

Concerns related to the prospect of new classified research include
campus safety and health issues, infringements on academic freedom,
and foreign student issues. Up to 15% of UARC funding may involve
classified research, about 1.25% of all research money at UHM.
Concerns have been expressed related to the task-ordering process that
would drive the UARC. Some faculty anticipate this approach would
dilute the level of innovation expected of a research university. On
the other hand, a local small business owner with a Department of
Defense contract believes there would be a positive impact in the
community with respect to employment opportunities. Another concern
is that the business plan does not include any assessment and exit
strategy. Finally, the UARC committee believes faculty must have
adequate time to review the contract proposal and to have consultation
before any proposal goes forward to the BOR.

b. Discussion: Diamond (JABSOM) asked what kind of input is wanted
from faculty? Rutter responded that although many comments have come
in, few explain how UARC benefits other than funds. Rutter commented
that other partnering proposals can be expected in the future and she
hopes the process used to make a determination on UARC could be a
model for future consultation and decision-making. Faculty need to
take responsibility for the decision and thus the UARC committee is
considering suggesting formal balloting. Diamond wants to have
sufficient public discussion so that faculty do feel informed.
Sanders (IFA) mentioned there was precedent for such a ballot.

Grandy (SS) wants to know how much research (in dollars) is now
classified and whether it is likely to grow as a result of the UARC?
Also, is classified research included in tenure & promotion decisions?
Could or should this be altered? Is there a danger that research that
is currently unclassified would be classified because of the "creep
factor" in a virtual UARC model? Ostrander stated $4-6 million a year
out of approximately $350 million is currently for classified
projects. UARC would add $1-2 million per year, and thus classified
projects would be expected to grow over time. No documents have left
the UH as classified but some have been classified later. Some
research collection processes have been classified but the resulting
reports were not classified. With respect to tenure and promotion,
the process can include only reviewable materials. Rutter stated that
"classified research creep" is a concern of the UARC committee.
Reider (ENG) asked what the Senate said about classified research and
when? Kipness (PHIL) said what is problematic about classified
research is that products may be subject to publication restriction.
J. Tiles (A &H) noted that last year the senate approved a resolution
that stated UH should not undertake research where there is the
reasonable expectation the results will be classified.

R. Dawson (non-senator, A & S) asked if the committee is addressing
social costs, particularly social justice (a priority in strategic
plan), and environmental impacts? Rutter responded that the committee
tried to address these concerns and variables, but they are difficult
to quantify and are ultimately subjective. Wilkins (non-senator,
SOEST, UARC committee) commented it's the senate's job to discuss
philosophy. Someone from JABSOM asked if anyone has identified
negative impacts from doing classified research, or alternatively,
what opportunities has association led to? Weems (CTAHR) mentioned
that the Maui Supercomputer and the internet are examples of prior
classified projects.

Raleigh (SOEST) asked if principal work at other UARCs was done by
faculty or by other kinds of hires? Rutter: other UARCs are staffed
by people fully devoted to it. Raleigh: Do we expect faculty here to
work in UARC in some significant way, or will we hire new people?
Wilkins stated the concept for UH is different ?and it may mean both
faculty and new hires participate.
5. Business/Management Plan for UARC Report/Discussion (Presented by Gary Ostrander):

a. Plan Summary: Ostrander commended Sarah's and the UARC committee's
efforts. He introduced Cutshaw, who has had a lead role in
negotiating the contract financial matters. Ostrander hoped to
release the contract and the business plan at the same time but the
contract was delayed. (Currently there is only one unresolved issue
but the Navy wants time for review before release. Therefore, the
proposed contract will not go to BOR before November. Ostrander
promised sufficient time for review by MFS and others. He understands
there are gaps in the business plan, acknowledges that it is not a
standard business plan, and is aware that good questions have come up
within the community. After today's meeting he plans to add an "exit
strategy" and is committed to finding answers to the questions that
come up today.

Ostrander argued that expenditures of 3.5 million to bring in $50
million makes financial sense. The start-up funds would come from
RTRF. He noted that RTFR has funded travel, publications, etc. for
the liberal arts, and is not only supporting the sciences. The real
value of the investment is receiving $50 new money for new research.

Ostrander noted that in this virtual research unit the director is a
civilian. Plans are to locate the office in the Manoa Innovation
Center. Task orders will evolve out of local discussion, not from
on-high. UARCs have been used to deliver NSF funds?and agencies such
as EPA, NOAA, etc. can utilize UARC to get funds to the University in
15 days. Ostrander's proposal for an advisory board includes faculty,
staff, students, and review by research units as well as MFS. He
included the SEC task order review proposal verbatim in the business
plan, although since the SEC proposal does not include student or
community participation.

Finances: Ostrander explained two models of typical several-year
budget spreadsheets on page 10 and 13 of the plan. Using the current
36.3% indirect cost applied to a contract the size of the UARC,
estimated total cost is just over $40 million. With a UARC, there is
a higher prorated direct cost of 45.1% (instead of indirect cost).
The UARC would allow more charges and thus would generate more RTRF
funds (which would be distributed in the standard way: 25% to the
President, 25% to Research, 50% to the implementing unit.) He noted
that the "someone else" getting money in UARC interim report could be
the PI and others in the unit. Ostrander also mentioned that in
comparison with a "CRADA contractual model" that vehicle can't pass
through dollars from a range of agencies.

b. Discussion: N. Kent (SS) asked where is the word "weapons" in the
UARC business plan? Ostrander stated that business plan is not the
vehicle to discuss the purpose of the UARC. He also noted that UHM
currently has many military contracts where there is dual purpose.
Only the individual task orders would provide information on the
purpose of the research requested.

Kent asked what risks are ahead for UARC? Ostrander replied that no
research is risk-free. But there are mitigations for the risks. Kent
asked Ostrander to name the possible risks and Ostsrander replied he
was hesitant to give examples? but risks would be the same as for any
research going on already?hazardous materials, spills, computer
technology risks, etc.

Tiles (A & H) stated he wanted to represent David Ross and ask how
much money will go to existing programs or new people? Who is the
"someone else" that we will be supporting? Ostrander responded that
it would likely go to both existing and new programs and people. The
funds could bring in more grad students, post-docs, other support
staff. The UARC structure would allow the continuation of a valuable
person in a gap between projects.

Lampe (NS) asked what percent of prorated direct costs will support a
director, finance director, office space? Ostrander: Existing faculty
may be part-time program directors. Probably $400,000-600,000 would
be needed for the director's salary and related personnel costs.
Lampe asked that the charts be revised to more clearly reflect these
actual costs. He asked if a retired admiral were hired as director
would that be a civilian hire? Ostrander: Yes.

Garcia (SOEST): What about reduced overhead? Is the 9% (difference
between indirect cost and prorated fee) really a surplus to the UH
system? some agencies allow much less overhead. He also wanted to
know if UHM is renegotiating indirect cost rate? Ostrander: Yes, and
it will probably go up but we don't know how much.

Brown (A & H) noted that a task order system implies that work
proposals will come from outside, rather than having faculty develop
the proposal. Ostrander: Correct, but UHM currently gets RFPs to
respond to and faculty always have a choice. (Who???) What if UHM
faculty don't want to do a task order, but someone wants to hire
someone new to do the task order? Ostrander: Not sure: this will not
be my decision.

R. Dawson noted that larger philosophical issues keep getting deferred
and faculty are told to focus on a piece, like a business plan. She's
concerned about a 5-day task order review turnaround?can faculty
understand task orders and respond in this timeframe? Ostrander: Many
task orders are not substantive, but change or modify earlier task
orders. If committee does not have time to review, that's the same
result as a negative decision. Dawson asked if the cap of $10 million
per year could be re-negotiated, for example with projects needed for
Katrina clean-up. Ostrander: Yes, we could renegotiate the cap.

Madey noted that the capacity to accept funds on short order already
exists with current contracts. A big surprise was the announcement
that UARC would be virtual rather than a distinct physical entity.
What reasoning led to this non-traditional model? And if MFS said its
not an appropriate model, would the Navy allow for a more conventional
model? Ostrander: It was understood from the beginning this UARC
would be non-traditional. Madey: As in UARCs are us? Ostrander: yes.
Navy indicated post-9-11 that the traditional model was not what they
wanted. He does not know what the impact would be to change gears
now. Perhaps we start with the experimental virtual UARC for 5 years
and then either shut down or go to more traditional model.

K. Barry (ASUH) stated she opposes UARC. The discussion has been
about financial issues but with tuition going up she feels UHM is not
so desperate for new funding. What advantages are there for the
community and the undergrad students? Ostrander: More research and
more opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research.

Bley-Vroman noted the time and announced that if people wanted to
continue the discussion they could stay. A move to adjourn was made
and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm.